Currently, Americans are standing at a crossroads: one way leads to certain labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods across the country; the other will lead toward the elimination of that possibility.

If you’ve never taken action on this issue before, I urge you to do so now. We need every single American who cares about this issue to make their opinion known very clearly to their federal representatives.

The burden should not be placed on the traditional salmon fishermen to get their nature-provided fish certified as GMO-free…According to recent polls done by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), over 90 percent of the public definitely wants to know what’s in their food.

Demands for labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were recently stimulated even further when the prestigious International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization declared glyphosate a “probable carcinogen.”1,2

Research3 has also revealed that inert ingredients like ethoxylated adjuvants in glyphosate-based herbicides are “active principles of human cell toxicity.” They also suspect that4 Roundup might interfere with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights, or miscarriages.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, is sprayed heavily on 84 percent of all GMO crops, including soy, corn, canola, and sugar beets—all the key ingredients in processed foods.

After reviewing 44 scientific studies, half of the IARC panel thought that glyphosate should be classified as a Group 1 “known carcinogen,” with the other half opting for a Group 2 “probable carcinogen” rating.

Environmental groups recently sent a letter5 to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for the agency to reexamine the safety of glyphosate in light of the IARC’s determination.

As noted by Ronnie Cummins of the OCA,6 “Given the fact that new peer-reviewed studies damning glyphosate are being published nearly every week, the IARC may very well reclassify glyphosate as a ‘known carcinogen’ in the near future.”

But merely hoping and wishing for labeling that will help you avoid GMOs won’t make it happen. Action is absolutely required at this time, and here’s why.

Major Victory for Vermont—Federal Judge Upholds GMO Labeling Law

On April 16, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed the first no-strings-attached GMO labeling bill (H.112) by an overwhelming margin—28-2. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on April 23.

The bill was immediately attacked by industry. Spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), they sued Vermont to block the implementation of the law.

On April 27, 2015, Judge Christina Reiss ruled in Vermont’s favor.7 The law stands, and will go into effect on July 1, 2016. As reported by Vermont Right to Know GMOs:8

“The judge also dismissed a number of the plaintiffs’ claims including assertions that the law violates the commerce clause and was expressly preempted by federal law.

Possibly, the most important aspect of the ruling is that the law’s requirement that GMOs be labeled is constitutional under the First Amendment…

‘The GMO food giants aren’t used to losing, but they were just knocked on their collective keister by the state of Vermont,’ said VPIRG Executive Director Paul Burns. ‘Consumers across the country will no doubt take notice.'”

The Grocery Manufacturers Association has asked the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn the April 27 ruling. GMA president Pamela Bailey issued a statement saying:

“The court’s opinion in denying our request to block the Vermont law opens the door to states creating mandatory labeling requirements based on pseudo-science and web-fed hysteria. If this law is allowed to go into effect, it will disrupt food supply chains, confuse consumers, and lead to higher food costs.”

Bailey also stressed that the federal court’s ruling—which determined that existing US law does not preempt state’s GMO labeling laws—“shows why Congress should pass the voluntary uniform GMO labeling bill quickly and federally preempt state mandatory GMO laws.”

It’s a big risk for them to appeal, because if they lose – and from the judge’s comments it’s going to be very hard to overturn – it’s going to be a tough blow to their federal ambitions of passing the Pompeo bill. That would then leave them with a final option, a Supreme Court ruling.

While there are questions about the impact former Monsanto man Clarence Thomas may have on the case, a Supreme Court ruling in GMA’s favor would invalidate 150 state laws that have existed for decades. From wild rice, maple syrup, and Alaskan seafood – these are all enforced labeling standards that were created by the states.

This would be extremely difficult for them to justify. Their only chance is through the interstate commerce clause, but it would be one of the most bizarre things to take place in the food industry.

That said, by the time they get to Supreme Court, Vermont’s law will already be in place—it will likely be in place before the appeal will even take place. July 1, 2016 is the date as of which GMOs must be labeled in Vermont. So while Monsanto and the GMA will most certainly push this all the way to the Supreme Court, in the meantime they still have to start labeling their foods. This is an enormous victory, and the Vermont team deserves much appreciation from all of us.

Defeat the Pompeo Bill, and GMO Labeling Can Become Reality!

As it currently stands, the GMA, Monsanto and other chemical technology companies now have only one solid option remaining: to pass the federal Pompeo bill (HR 1599) in 2015, which would trump state law and strip states of the right to pass GMO food labeling bills.

The bill also allows unscrupulous food and beverage companies to continue mislabeling GMO-tainted foods as “natural” or “all natural.” The Pompeo bill, ironically named “The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,” is proposing nothing if not inaccurate labeling of foods, by preventing you from ever learning which foods may contain GMOs. Critics of the bill have dubbed it the DARK Act, aka “Deny Americans the Right-to-Know” Act, which is exactly what the bill does.

Stopping the passing of the Pompeo bill is THE most important action anyone concerned about GMOs can possibly take right now, and the outcome will quite possibly determine the future of agriculture. It’s the choice of a regenerative or degenerative food system; a choice of monoculture or diversity, of obesity or wellness, pollution, or nutrition.

The DARK Act (HR 1599) was introduced by Koch-sponsored Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS4). And while republicans are supposedly “standing together” to defend state rights, many republicans are joining with Pompeo to remove the rights of states, and to remove citizens’ right to know about genetically engineered foods.

It’s an indefensible republican position, and they need to hear about this hypocrisy. As noted by Colin O’Neil, director of Government Affairs for Center for Food Safety last year:9 “GMA’s selection of Congressman Pompeo as their champion shows how extreme the proposal really is.”

We need everyone to put pressure on your federal representatives, and demand they vote NO on the Pompeo bill. We need to do everything we possibly can to prevent this bill from passing. A list of all the sponsors of Pompeo’s bill can be found on the congressional website.10 Democrats shouldn’t be fighting against consumers based on their supposed purpose as democrats, yet many are cosponsoring the bill. And Republicans are supposed to stand up for state’s rights, yet they’ve put their names to this bill as well. In short, they’re all hypocrites fighting what a federal judge has already ruled as constitutional.

Don’t Fall for Front Groups’ Hollow Fear Tactics

One of the primary justifications for removing states’ rights to implement their own labeling laws is that a “patchwork” of state laws11 will create havoc and excessive expense. These arguments are complete nonsense.

The industry front group “Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food” is trying to confuse Americans about the need to label GMOs, ironically proposing that labeling will confuse you, and raise food prices. They also claim that state decisions to label GMOs will force food companies to create multiple supply chains, warehousing, and delivery mechanisms to comply. All of these notions are false, and perhaps the biggest fallacy of them all is the last item.

They are misleading and lying to you by conveniently not telling you that companies simply would not label a product as GMO when sold in one state, and not when sold in another. State laws effectively force companies to label their foods across the US, regardless of the state it’s being sold in. Anything less would be to commit public relations’ suicide.

They also want you to think that compliance is going to be a major hassle, when in fact compliance will be the same for all states, because the leading advocacy groups that are currently helping to enable GMO labeling are and will continue to support identical compliance for all state laws that will be passed.

All a manufacturer needs to do is print “Produced with Genetic Engineering” on the label. That’s all that is required. Enforcement of these laws, however, should be left up to each state. Different size states have different abilities and efficiencies to determine how best to enforce their laws (states get to decide capital punishment, why not let them determine how to enforce their own food labeling laws?).

Pompeo Bill Is Trying to Legalize Fraud

It’s important to recognize that not labeling transgenic food is fraud, so the Pompeo bill is essentially just trying to legalize it. As an example, salmon spliced with eel is no longer the salmon you would expect when seeing “salmon” written on a label. It’s a cross between salmon and eel, something akin to a “sEELmon,” and that must be disclosed. Not disclosing this fact is fraud because it is counter to a consumer’s expectation.

The burden should not be placed on the traditional salmon fishermen to get their nature-provided fish certified as GMO-free; the burden of truthful declaration of what the product actually is should be placed on the patent holder and producer of these transgenic organisms.

The same logic should apply to crops. Research12 has shown that there are significant compositional differences between genetically engineered (GE) soybeans and non-GE varieties, for example. Contrary to industry claims, the study found that they also differ in terms of nutritional quality, with organic soybeans having the healthiest nutritional profile. According to the authors, “This study rejects that genetically modified soy is ‘substantially equivalent’ to non-GM soybeans.”

For close to 20 years the American public has been exposed to these largely experimental, untested foods. The FDA claims GMOs can be presumed safe, and that there was an “overwhelming scientific consensus” backing up their decision to categorize GMOs as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) back in 1992. Yet, the evidence shows that is a bold-faced lie.

Steven Druker reveals this and much more in his book Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.

The industry keeps replaying the old refrain that there is “overwhelming scientific consensus” that GMOs are safe, when in fact there really is no such consensus. To highlight and drive home this point, on January 24, a statement signed by 300 scientists, researchers, physicians, and scholars was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe,13 unequivocally asserting that there isnoscientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

Moreover, the paper, titled No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety, states that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety is in actuality “an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated.” The paper also notes that such a claim “is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue.”

In fact, in an upcoming interview with Dr. Anthony Samsel, he reveals that he was able to force Monsanto to send him documents from their initial research in1981, showing clearly that glyphosate caused tumors in nearly all the rats that were exposed to it. In light of this, can there be any doubt whatsoever that the Pompeo bill, which would eliminate your right to know that you’re eating GMOs, is a last-ditch effort to legalize decades’ long fraud?

GMOs Have Led to Massive Increase in Toxic Pesticide Use—Not Less!

According to the industry front group Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food, GMOs reduce water and pesticide use. Anyone who believes this standing PR talking point these days is unaware of the statistics, which clearly show that neither of these claims are true.

As noted in a 2012 article by Tom Philpott,14 Monsanto’s Roundup Ready technology “has called forth a veritable monsoon of herbicides, both in terms of higher application rates for Roundup, and… growing use of other, more toxic herbicides.” Philpott’s article includes eye-opening statistics compiled by Chuck Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. Benbrook discovered that:

Herbicide use dropped by about two percent between 1996 and 1999, but shortly thereafter, as weeds began developing resistance against the chemical, application rates skyrocketed

Rapidly increasing weed resistance is driving up the volume of herbicide needed by about 25 percent annually. The recent approvals of 2,4-D and dicamba resistant GE crops may drive it up by another 50 percent, according to research published in Environmental Sciences Europe15

In 2002, glyphosate use on Roundup Ready soybeans rose by 21 percent. Overall, American farmers increased their use of glyphosate by 19 million pounds that year

By 2011, farmers growing Roundup Ready crops (corn, soy, and cotton) used 24 percent more Roundup than farmers planting non-GE versions of the same crop, because by that time, glyphosate-resistance had become the norm. Farmers also began resorting to older, more toxic herbicides like 2,4-D

Toxins in Food Supply Are Now a Major Contributor to Chronic Disease

As noted by Dr. Joseph E. Pizzorno,16 founding president of naturopathic Bastyr University and former advisor to President Clinton on complementary and alternative medicines, “toxins in the modern food supply are now a major contributor to, and in some cases the cause of, virtually all chronic diseases.” David Bellinger, a professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School, estimates Americans have lost a total of 16.9 million IQ points due to exposure to organophosphate pesticides.17

The World Health Organization (WHO) has now acknowledged that glyphosate is a human carcinogen, and compelling research shows that bees and butterflies—critical food crop pollinators—are disappearing at alarming rates because of the toxic pesticides associated with these GMO monocultures. Glyphosate has also been found to be highly toxic to the soil surrounding a plant’s roots (the rhizosphere), woodland plants, amphibians, fish, aquatic environments, and mammals18–causing reproductive problems and disrupting the endocrine system.

Even IF genetically engineered crops could produce more food to feed a growing population (and research shows organic agriculture is actually more efficient at creating higher yields with less input), what good will it do to produce more food if it’s all toxic—to microbes, insects, animals, and humans alike? Ask yourself, who benefits from the idea that we “need” genetic engineering to survive? This notion is a manufactured one that has no solid basis in reality.

When you consider that Americans eat an average of 193 pounds of genetically engineered foods each year,19 the issues of compositional equivalency and glyphosate contamination are undoubtedly both important.

Avoiding Toxic Food Is Imperative for Optimal Health

The chemical technology industry, spearheaded by Monsanto, has managed to turn food into a literal poison. Glyphosate, which we know systemically contaminates the plant as it is integrated into every call of the plant and cannot be washed off, has a number of devastating biological effects, including the following:

Nutritional deficiencies, as glyphosate immobilizes certain nutrients and alters the nutritional composition of the treated crop

Disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids (these are essential amino acids not produced in your body that must be supplied via your diet)

Increased toxin exposure (this includes high levels of glyphosate and formaldehyde in the food itself)

Enhancement of damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and environmental toxins as a result of glyphosate shutting down the function of detoxifying enzymes

Creation of ammonia (a byproduct created when certain microbes break down glyphosate), which can lead to brain inflammation associated with autism and Alzheimer’s disease

Ideally, you’d be best off opting for products bearing the USDA 100% organic label when buying processed foods in order to avoid exposure to agricultural chemicals, which certainly are not limited to Roundup. Don’t make the mistake of confusing the “natural” label with organic standards however.

The “natural” label is not based on any standards and is frequently misused by sellers of GE products. You’d also be wise to stop using Roundup around your home, where children and pets can come into contact with it simply by walking across the area.

More Chemical Technology ‘Bio-Ag’ Lies

Contrary to industry propaganda, GMOs are only making a bad situation worse. Chemical agriculture in and of itself is a hazard to human and environmental health, and must be addressed if we want to get a handle on runaway disease statistics. GE crops are chemical agriculture on steroids. Here are a few more inconvenient facts the industry is trying to sweep under the carpet:

Aquifers are being drained to water corn, half of which is used for ethanol—a fact that makes the argument about “feeding the world” rather bizarre.

Glyphosate is not only carcinogenic, it’s also promoting antibiotic resistance, as evidenced in a groundbreaking study.20,21 Roundup was shown to increase the antibiotic-resistant prowess of E. coli and Salmonella—two bacteria responsible for a large portion of foodborne illness.

Dicamba and 2,4-D were also found to promote antibiotic resistance, which is particularly relevant in light of the recent approval of a new generation of GE crops resistant not only to glyphosate, but also to one or both of these pesticides.

This research implies that combating the weed and pest resistance caused by Roundup Ready GE crops by introducing dicamba- and 2,4-D-resistant varieties is probably only going to speed up the process of creating multi-drug resistant pathogens that are already killing 23,000 Americans each year. Experts are now warning that we may soon be at a point where ALL antibiotics fail, and once that happens, it will be the end of modern medicine as we know it.

It’s quite crucial to understand that glyphosate contamination in GE crops is systemic, meaning it is present in every cell of the plant, from root to tip. It’s not just an issue of topical contamination—although that certainly adds to the level of contamination.

Normally, you need to thoroughly wash your produce to remove topical residues, but you cannot remove glyphosate from GE produce, as it has been absorbed into the cells of the plant. And neither can food and animal feed manufacturers who use GE ingredients in their products.

Millions of acres of GMO corn and soy are used to make to human poisons—high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and hydrogenated vegetable oil (trans fats)—another fact that makes the argument about “feeding a growing population” completely ludicrous. The vast majority of GE crops grown in the US (corn, soy, canola, and sugar beets) are used to make cheap ingredients for processed foods that are grossly inferior in terms of nutrition to whole organic foods.

While the industry puts on this façade of supplying the world with critically needed foods, what they’re really doing is producing foods that have been scientifically proven to promote obesity, metabolic dysfunction, and associated chronic diseases—all while making a killing on royalties from patented seeds and pesticide sales.

The majority of the GE corn and soy grown is used to support confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which is the primary source of antibiotic resistance that kills tens of thousands of Americans annually.

Other Countries Stand to Lose Big Due to ‘Monsanto Provision’ in US Fast Track Legislation

As explained by Ben Lilliston in a recent interview, Fast Track (also known as trade promotion authority, or TPA) gives the President the right to negotiate and finalize a trade agreement, which Congress then votes on in its entirety. And, once the agreements are completed, you can no longer make any amendments.

Under the US constitution, Congress has the right to engage in trade agreements prior to this, and to set negotiating parameters. Under Fast Track, Congress forfeits this right, allowing the President to negotiate at will instead. According to a recent press release:22

“Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) today spoke out against a provision buried in trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation that could help a government or multinational corporation attack state or national laws that require the labeling of genetically engineered foods…. The Obama administration is asking Congress for fast track authority in order to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a free trade agreement with the European Union.

‘Call it the smoking gun,’ said DeFazio. ‘Proof that fast track and massive free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership are written by and for multinational corporations such as agriculture giant Monsanto. Instead of using trade deals as an opportunity to protect and strengthen consumer rights by joining the countries which require genetically engineered food to be labeled, this administration wants to benefit wealthy corporations at the expense of the public.'”

The provision in question is included in the Trade Negotiating Objectives, and requires American negotiators to fight for trade agreement rules that eliminate “barriers” to markets. One such barrier is the labeling of GE foods, which 64 countries already require. Some of our largest trading partners, such as Japan, China, Brazil, and the European Union, stand to lose the most from this legislation. As noted by Colin O’Neil, director of Government Affairs at Center for Food Safety:

“At a time when Americans overwhelmingly want a right to know what they are buying and feeding their families, it is appalling that Congress would encourage stripping other countries of their right to label genetically engineered foods. Each country has justifiably required the labeling of GE foods; the only thing that cannot be justified is why consumers in the US don’t have the same right to know as consumers in 64 other countries around the world.”

It’s Time to Take Decisive Action

I urge you to take action and get organized. Let your representatives know you will not accept a Yes vote on HR 1599 (aka the DARK act), and that they will not serve another term if they vote in favor of it. This may be the single most important action you can take this year, so please do not put this off. This is our chance to get GMOs labeled in the US—but we MUST stop the Pompeo bill to make that a reality. It’s really make or break time.

Vermont’s victory against the GMA has set the precedent that state GMO labeling laws are constitutional, and there’s nothing Monsanto et al. can do about it. And, as mentioned earlier, food companies simply are not going to produce two different kinds of packages, some with GMO label and some without, depending on which state the product is destined to be sold in.

What will happen is, they’ll label the product as GMO regardless of where it’s sold, and if sales are threatened, they’ll start trading out the GMO ingredients to avoid the dreaded label requirement.

The reason the industry is threatening you with higher food prices and convoluted distribution chains is because they know this, and they want to avoid having to replace the GMO ingredients. Were there price hikes when trans fats had to be labeled? Did you notice price hikes when any other ingredient had to be listed on the package? No? Then why would you expect a price hike now?

The fact of the matter is, Monsanto and its henchmen are trying to protect a huge cash cow with multiple golden teats—patented seeds, pesticides, and cheap tax-dollar subsidized ingredients with which to make processed foods—all of which hurts you while benefiting them. There’s nothing safe or accurate about Pompeo’s “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,” and our representatives need to be told we will not tolerate it.

What Are GMOs?

GMOs are a product of genetic engineering, meaning their genetic makeup has been altered to induce a variety of “unique” traits to crops, such as making them drought-resistant or giving them “more nutrients.” GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry. They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not. For years, I’ve stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.

Help Support GMO Labeling

The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto’s Evil Twin—is pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about what’s in your food. For nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate agribusiness have exercised near-dictatorial control over American agriculture. For example, Monsanto has made many claims that glyphosate in Roundup is harmless to animals and humans. However, recently the World Health Organization (WHO) had their research team test glyphosate and have labeled it a probable carcinogen.

Public opinion around the biotech industry’s contamination of our food supply and destruction of our environment has reached the tipping point. We’re fighting back. That’s why I was the first to push for GMO labeling. I donated a significant sum to the first ballot initiative in California in 2012, which inspired others to donate to the campaign as well. We technically “lost the vote, but we are winning the war, as these labeling initiatives have raised a considerable amount of public awareness.

The insanity has gone far enough, which is why I encourage you to boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including natural and organic brands. More than 80 percent of our support comes from individual consumers like you, who understand that real change comes from the grassroots.

Recently, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan) has reintroduced a bill (HR 1599) that would preempt states’ rights to enact GMO labeling laws. This bill would create a federal government program to oversee guidelines for voluntary labeling of products that do not contain GMOs. It would specifically prohibit Congress or individual states from requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods or ingredients. It would also allow food manufacturers to use the word “natural” on products that contain GMOs. TAKE ACTION NOW! Your local representatives need to hear from you! Please contact them today by CLICKING HERE

Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to fight back against these junk food manufacturers, pesticide producers, and corporate giants.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

Non-GMO Food Resources by Country

Together, Let’s Help OCA Get The Funding They Deserve

Let’s Help OCA get the funding it deserves. I have found very few organizations who are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a public interest organization dedicated to promoting health justice and sustainability. A central focus of the OCA is building a healthy, equitable, and sustainable system of food production and consumption.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.